Ballistics on 25 ACP....and.... 32 ACP
- Thread starter Lavan
- Start date
Bill DeShivs
New member
Even at the same velocity, the .32 is a bigger, heavier bullet.
32s are way better than 25s but certainly not as good as a 380. If you are going to shoot a 25, better to get a 22 you can afford to shoot a lot and load it with good ammo like Federal Punch or Velocitor for defense. You are going to spend as much on 25 ammo as 32 ammo. Enough to buy a few hundred rounds of 22s. Out of a 4 inch barrel the 32s have about as much power as a high velocity 22LR from a rifle and the 25 has about as much as a 22 from a 4 or 6 inch barrel.
Quickload results for velocities using default pressure and COAL include
Cartridge : .32 ACP (7.65 Browning)
Bullet : .312, 60, Speer HP GD 3986
Barrel Length : 2.0 inch
Powder: Unique
Velocity: 970 fps
Cartridge : .32 ACP (7.65 Browning)
Bullet : .312, 71, Sierra FMJ FN TM RN 8010
Barrel Length : 2.0 inch = 50.8 mm
Powder: Unique
Velocity: 886 fps
Cartridge : .25 ACP (6.35 Browning)
Bullet : .251, 50, Speer TMJ 3982
Barrel Length : 2.0 inch = 50.8 mm
Powder: Unique
Velocity: 740 fps
And for the other mention:
Cartridge : .380 Auto (9mm Kurz)
Bullet : .355, 90, Speer HP GD 3992
Barrel Length : 2.0 inch = 50.8 mm
Powder: Unique
Velocity: 836 fps
Cartridge : .32 ACP (7.65 Browning)
Bullet : .312, 60, Speer HP GD 3986
Barrel Length : 2.0 inch
Powder: Unique
Velocity: 970 fps
Cartridge : .32 ACP (7.65 Browning)
Bullet : .312, 71, Sierra FMJ FN TM RN 8010
Barrel Length : 2.0 inch = 50.8 mm
Powder: Unique
Velocity: 886 fps
Cartridge : .25 ACP (6.35 Browning)
Bullet : .251, 50, Speer TMJ 3982
Barrel Length : 2.0 inch = 50.8 mm
Powder: Unique
Velocity: 740 fps
And for the other mention:
Cartridge : .380 Auto (9mm Kurz)
Bullet : .355, 90, Speer HP GD 3992
Barrel Length : 2.0 inch = 50.8 mm
Powder: Unique
Velocity: 836 fps
What kind of .32 do you have that only has a 2" barrel? I'm only aware of 4 pistols currently made in .32 Auto: the Beretta 3032 Tomcat, Kel-Tec P32, North American Arms Guardian, and Seecamp LWS. Of those four, the shortest barrel length listed is the Guardian at 2.19" (Seecamp doesn't list a barrel length on their website) and the longest is the Kel-Tec at 2.7". BBTI does list 2" barrel data for both .25 Auto and .32 Auto in their T/C Encore test barrels and the "real world" guns they used for both calibers (Beretta 3032 Tomcat and Beretta 950 Jetfire) seem to give about the velocities I'd expect (both have about 2 1/2" barrels and give velocities in between the 2" and 3" T/C Encore data).
Are you just wanting approximate velocities or is your question more about terminal ballistics? While I'm not as quick to dismiss these cartridges as useless as some are (my wife's EDC is a Beretta Tomcat and I've carried guns in both calibers before myself) I will say that both are probably best loaded with some sort of non-expanding bullet. With such small, light, and relatively low-velocity bullets, hollowpoint expansion will be iffy at best and, if they do expand, is likely to give inadequate penetration. If you want something that will do more than punch the rather small holes of a FMJ-RN, Underwood does load .32 Auto with Lehigh's 50 gr Extreme Defender bullet though some guns have been reputed to have feeding issues with them (my wife's Tomcat feeds them just fine so that's what it's loaded with). Buffalo Bore also makes a 75 gr hardcast .32 Auto loading which is quite a bit more powerful than most, but I'd be hesitant to shoot very much of it in a Tomcat or P-32. Finally, Buffalo Bore has just come out with a couple of .25 Auto loadings that look promising (a 50 gr FMJ and a 60 gr hardcast) but again I'd be fairly selective about what sort of gun I'd want to shoot them in as there are a lot of .25's which are less-than-stellar quality floating around out there.
Are you just wanting approximate velocities or is your question more about terminal ballistics? While I'm not as quick to dismiss these cartridges as useless as some are (my wife's EDC is a Beretta Tomcat and I've carried guns in both calibers before myself) I will say that both are probably best loaded with some sort of non-expanding bullet. With such small, light, and relatively low-velocity bullets, hollowpoint expansion will be iffy at best and, if they do expand, is likely to give inadequate penetration. If you want something that will do more than punch the rather small holes of a FMJ-RN, Underwood does load .32 Auto with Lehigh's 50 gr Extreme Defender bullet though some guns have been reputed to have feeding issues with them (my wife's Tomcat feeds them just fine so that's what it's loaded with). Buffalo Bore also makes a 75 gr hardcast .32 Auto loading which is quite a bit more powerful than most, but I'd be hesitant to shoot very much of it in a Tomcat or P-32. Finally, Buffalo Bore has just come out with a couple of .25 Auto loadings that look promising (a 50 gr FMJ and a 60 gr hardcast) but again I'd be fairly selective about what sort of gun I'd want to shoot them in as there are a lot of .25's which are less-than-stellar quality floating around out there.
Bill DeShivs
New member
The Keltec P32 is a locked breech design that is capable of handling much hotter loadings than any other small .32 auto. All the others are blowback .32s.
While it may be capable of handling hotter loadings than a blowback of comparable size, it's still and awfully small and light gun and I, personally, wouldn't feel comfortable shooting a steady diet of Buffalo Bore ammo through it. While not a Kel-Tec, I do have experience in shooting Buffalo Bore hardcast ammo through a Taurus TCP in .380 which is of very similar design to the Kel-Tec (not my gun and not my ammo). In that gun, the recoil started walking the disassembly pin out within two magazines. This is why my own Kel-Tec P3AT gets loaded with run-of-the mill ammo (currently Remington 95 gr FMJ). If I shoot Buffalo Bore hardcast .32 Auto, it'll be through an all-steel, full-sized .32 like my Walther PP or Beretta 1935, and even then I'll be making sure they have fresh recoil springs in them.
While it is a weak cartridge (though not as pitifully underpowered as some seem to think), I think a good deal of the acrimony for the .25 Auto comes from some of the guns it's been chambered for. I notice that people who appreciate the .25 seem to usually have some of the better quality guns chambered for it such as those made by Colt, FN, and Beretta. The problem is that so many .25's were made by "ring of fire" companies like Jennings, Bryco, Davis, etc. that are of notoriously poor quality with correspondingly bad reputations for reliability. Because this was many people's only exposure to the cartridge, it unfortunately became associated with the "Saturday Night Special" genre of firearms and the guns' poor reputation carried over to the cartridge.
The reality is that the .25 Auto is roughly equivalent in power to a High Velocity .22 Long Rifle when both are fired from the same sized handgun. As opposed to the .22, however, it has the advantage of a slightly heavier 50 gr bullet, an actual copper jacket as opposed to the copper plating of most .22's, a more feed-reliable semi-rimmed case as opposed to the rimmed .22, and more reliable centerfire primers. In short, I think of it as the .22 Long Rifle optimized for reliability in a small semi-auto. In my experience, if you get a good quality gun in .25 Auto (mine is a Beretta 950B Jetfire, but I've also had experience with an Astra Cub and Baby Browning) it will be reliable when fed 50 gr FMJ (never tried JHP as I see no advantage to them in .25), the same cannot always be said of .22 pocket guns as even top-quality ones like the Beretta 21A Bobcat have been known to be finicky about what sort of ammunition they're fed.
wild cat mccane
New member
Golden Loki's website was the shining star of the gone by years...
Website down since 2011 and never did 25 testing:
https://web.archive.org/web/20110618203652/http://www.goldenloki.com/ammo/gel/32acp/gel32acp.htm
Now luckygunner is the standard which they do 25 testing.
https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/pocket-pistol-caliber-gel-test-results/#25ACP
Luckgunner on 25 acp out of a beretta 2.4":
"However, even that test showed inconsistent penetration from shot to shot. I typically do not offer concrete recommendations in these tests, but I would be very reluctant to rely on .25 ACP unless I had no other option."
You'll see the mouse gun rounds going 10mm FMJ distance in gel. Drag being the great equalizer. Not true of the 25acp where it's probably just got all the wrong things going for expansion/penetration.
Website down since 2011 and never did 25 testing:
https://web.archive.org/web/20110618203652/http://www.goldenloki.com/ammo/gel/32acp/gel32acp.htm
Now luckygunner is the standard which they do 25 testing.
https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/pocket-pistol-caliber-gel-test-results/#25ACP
Luckgunner on 25 acp out of a beretta 2.4":
"However, even that test showed inconsistent penetration from shot to shot. I typically do not offer concrete recommendations in these tests, but I would be very reluctant to rely on .25 ACP unless I had no other option."
You'll see the mouse gun rounds going 10mm FMJ distance in gel. Drag being the great equalizer. Not true of the 25acp where it's probably just got all the wrong things going for expansion/penetration.
I wouldn't take Lucky Gunner's testing as a "standard" for much of anything as all of their testing is done with Clear Ballistics gelatin. While more cost effective and easier to work with, Clear Ballistics gelatin cannot be trusted to give results consistent with real 10% ordinance gelatin as is explained in this article:
/police-products/firearms/accessories/ammunition/articles/ballistic-gelatin-comparisons-part-iii-IbjkEYB93TAd5o6J
In Brassfetcher's testing using real 10% ordinance gel, Winchester 50 gr FMJ was more consistent at 11.5-14" over 5 shots.
https://brassfetcher.com/Handguns/25%20ACP/25%20ACP%20Ammo%20Selection.html
I don't take gel testing to be anything much, though I suppose it might be useful were I ever called on to stop an attack by ballistic gel..
Clear gel, 10% ord gel, 1" pine boards, chose any media you want for testing, its good to show relative performance in that medium.
Its not so good at predicting actual results shooting live humans.
Clear gel, 10% ord gel, 1" pine boards, chose any media you want for testing, its good to show relative performance in that medium.
Its not so good at predicting actual results shooting live humans.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"Its not so good at predicting actual results shooting live humans. "
Well, first off, you're wrong about that, because ballistic gelatin has proven to be, by far, the most accurate predictor of bullet performance against human targets.
But, that's actually not the point of gelatin testing. It never has been, and it never will be.
The point of the testing is to see how the bullet will perform, whether it will expand at a given velocity, and how well it will penetrate, in a repeatable tissue simulant.
But, none of that correlates directly to whether it will, or will not, result in a disabling hit on a human target. Dr. Martin Fackler NEVER said that if a bullet performs well in gel testing it will perform well against a human target. Far too many people over the years have grossly misrepresented Fackler's intents and purposes in developing ballistic gel testing protocols.
Now, that said, gel testing has proven to be, by far, the most accurate method of determining whether a given bullet will expand at a given velocity in a flesh-type material. With expansion comes increased wounding potential.
BUT... and there's always the big but...
Bullet expansion isn't the be all and end all of performance in human targets.
Fackler was also adamant that first, and foremost, the bullet had to penetrate far enough to reach, and disrupt, vital body functions in a manner that will hopefully stop an attacker sooner rather than later.
That came from the Miami FBI shootout in the 1980s. What most people don't know is that the Winchester Silvertip that hit... Mattix?... was fatal. It just wasn't fatal quickly enough because, after passing through his arm, the bullet stopped just short of his heart. As it passed through his lung it tore up at least one small artery that would have resulted in his death in something like 10 minutes (IIRC, I'm not looking up the report again). Had the bullet penetrated into his heart he likely would have died before he could kill several FBI agents.
The end result is that we now have a good selection of bullets that generally will both expand AND penetrate, and ballistic gel was a very important tool in getting us to that end.
Well, first off, you're wrong about that, because ballistic gelatin has proven to be, by far, the most accurate predictor of bullet performance against human targets.
But, that's actually not the point of gelatin testing. It never has been, and it never will be.
The point of the testing is to see how the bullet will perform, whether it will expand at a given velocity, and how well it will penetrate, in a repeatable tissue simulant.
But, none of that correlates directly to whether it will, or will not, result in a disabling hit on a human target. Dr. Martin Fackler NEVER said that if a bullet performs well in gel testing it will perform well against a human target. Far too many people over the years have grossly misrepresented Fackler's intents and purposes in developing ballistic gel testing protocols.
Now, that said, gel testing has proven to be, by far, the most accurate method of determining whether a given bullet will expand at a given velocity in a flesh-type material. With expansion comes increased wounding potential.
BUT... and there's always the big but...
Bullet expansion isn't the be all and end all of performance in human targets.
Fackler was also adamant that first, and foremost, the bullet had to penetrate far enough to reach, and disrupt, vital body functions in a manner that will hopefully stop an attacker sooner rather than later.
That came from the Miami FBI shootout in the 1980s. What most people don't know is that the Winchester Silvertip that hit... Mattix?... was fatal. It just wasn't fatal quickly enough because, after passing through his arm, the bullet stopped just short of his heart. As it passed through his lung it tore up at least one small artery that would have resulted in his death in something like 10 minutes (IIRC, I'm not looking up the report again). Had the bullet penetrated into his heart he likely would have died before he could kill several FBI agents.
The end result is that we now have a good selection of bullets that generally will both expand AND penetrate, and ballistic gel was a very important tool in getting us to that end.
This is the point. ALL testing in any medium only proves what the bullet will do in that medium. It does provide a consistent material, and therefore useful to make relative comparisions between bullet performances in that medium.
We ASSUME similar performance in similar media, but even the best simulations are just that, simulations, and cannot take into account or replicate the massive amount of factors involved in real world shootings.
Just as relying on the math alone can present a distorted view, so does relying on gel tests, as the sole determining factor in what is most likely to be most effective.
The idea that round A will be more effective because it went 3 inches deeper in the gel than round B is not only a blind alley to go down, but an extremely narrow one.
Point here is that even if testing accurately mirrors real world results 80 or 90%+ of the time, there will still be real world factors that testing couldn't account for that can change the outcome, radically.
A big example of those "rare" exceptions is the FBI's Miami shoot out. The 9mm JHP that "failed" to stop the bad guy "fast enough" was a fatal wound. I've seen a surgeon's comments on it, and he stated that if the guy had taken that wound at the operating room door, it was unlikely they could have saved his life. Absolutely a fatal wound. Just not a immediate stop.
The round used met every testing standard of the time. Including penetration. It just turned out that in the real world situation where it was used, with all its complexities of angles and materials, meeting the approved requirements just wasn't quite enough.
Since that event, requirements have been changed, and better bullets have been created, and tested.
Don't take meeting (or even exceeding) official standards as a guarantor of success. Its not. There will always be situations where factors combine in just the right way to create a situation where official performance standards just aren't quite enough. Doesn't happen the majority of the time, but it absolutely does happen.
Even the most highly rated rounds have examples where they have failed, and oddly enough, there are also examples where the most denigrated rounds have succeeded. There is no magic bullet, and nothing can be guaranteed to work 100% of the time, or, at least won't be, by anyone honest.